Philosophers that interest you, and why (Jazzfanz Philosophy Thread)

[♪alt13]

Nietzsche's criticism of the entirety of the Western philosophical tradition since the Ancient Greeks is in many ways spot on. His actual philosophy is a lot less interesting.

This^. The Genealogy of Morals is a philosophical masterpiece. The Birth of Tragedy is also great yet I personally find the subject matter a little less interesting.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Just a big fat LOL at anyone who can flippantly say Nietzsche's "actual" philosophy isn't "interesting." That's one of the most confounding statements in the history of the General Discussion forum.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

EDIT:
Hahaha, Hume had poor insight on empiricism? He's the first to posit a philosophy based on external relations, which is the core of all non-**** empiricism.

Nietzsche's "actual philosophy" isn't "interesting"... but his critique is good? The first thing anybody learns about him is that his philosophy IS his critique. The second is that he's the least understood philosopher in the anglophone world if you think about stale structures.

Sheeeet braugh, it's time to log off Wikipedia and actually read the texts.

My list:
Gilles Deleuze, Henri Bergson, David Hume, Gilbert Simondon, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and of course, jazzfan_2814

Just a big fat LOL at anyone who can flippantly say Nietzsche's "actual" philosophy isn't "interesting." That's one of the most confounding statements in the history of the General Discussion forum.

Is any more proof needed?

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Wow... Serious coincidence! I was just reading the quote from the post above mine! Damn!!! I guess I miss NAOS!!!

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

... But for all the guys and gals at home, take note:

In the entire realm of possible mis-readings of Nietzsche, siro's brief statements are right up there with the worst I've ever seen. There was the whole Nazi butcher-job, then Siro. One and two.

Let me say this too:

I actually get a big rush from reading Siro's statement. I spend so much time around carefully constructed arguments (and Nietzsche's works) that that statement is simply amazing to me.

 

[♪alt13]

... But for all the guys and gals at home, take note:

In the entire realm of possible mis-readings of Nietzsche, siro's brief statements are right up there with the worst I've ever seen. There was the whole Nazi butcher-job, then Siro. One and two.

Let me say this too:

I actually get a big rush from reading Siro's statement. I spend so much time around carefully constructed arguments (and Nietzsche's works) that that statement is simply amazing to me.

Let's hear your take on Nietzsche. Seriously I am interested.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Let's hear your take on Nietzsche. Seriously I am interested.

Sorry bru, but I'm on my phone, and this isn't the best space. I'd answer a more targeted question.

Cliffnotes:

1. Critical philosophy is about the referral of all things, origins, axioms, etc. to values -- more specifically to the evaluations from which their value arises.

2. Nietzsche's GENEALOGIST was then tasked with interpreting which forces determined those values.

3. There is no such thing as objective fact... as if something can be apprehended from some value-free or disinterested perspective.

4. It's ****ing pointless to make an inventory of established values and/or criticise values in the name of other values. Critical work, by definition, creates new values.

Etc.

Etc.

I think Nietzsche is the most original thinker in European history.

 

[♪alt13]

I think Nietzsche is the most original thinker in European history.

I agree. I wouldn't dare critique his work. I've read both of those books above atleast three times and I have an ephemeral experience each time.

I do have a problem with modern"philosophy" classes in that they seem to teach the history of philosophy rather than the love of knowledge.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Why aren't you interested in hating knowledge?

 

[♪alt13]

Why aren't you interested in hating knowledge?

misosophy?

 

[Siro]

Sorry bru, but I'm on my phone, and this isn't the best space. I'd answer a more targeted question.

Cliffnotes:

1. Critical philosophy is about the referral of all things, origins, axioms, etc. to values -- more specifically to the evaluations from which their value arises.

2. Nietzsche's GENEALOGIST was then tasked with interpreting which forces determined those values.

3. There is no such thing as objective fact... as if something can be apprehended from some value-free or disinterested perspective.

4. It's ****ing pointless to make an inventory of established values and/or criticise values in the name of other values. Critical work, by definition, creates new values.

Etc.

Etc.

I think Nietzsche is the most original thinker in European history.

Nietzsche is the most interesting philosopher out of the 12 or so that college students learn about. And that is mainly for his thoughtful rejection of the majority of Western metaphysics. But deep down, Nietzsche is still as influenced by renaissance romanticism as the others. In fact, many of his axioms are more fitting in poems than in serious philosophical discussion.

Men are only driven by their instinct to dominate. That is not a truth, of course, because there is no such thing. There is only perspective. Except for Christianity. It is the truth that Christianity is horrible. It is the religion of the weak. I should keep talking about this throughout all my work. It is immoral to support Christianity, and we should get rid of it. Not that it matters you know, because history is cyclical. And on the subject of the superman... **** it, I'd rather read the Quran.

 

[♪alt13]

But deep down, Nietzsche is still as influenced by renaissance romanticism as the others. In fact, many of his axioms are more fitting in poems than in serious philosophical discussion. Men are only driven by their instinct to dominate.

I haven't read "Thus spoke Zarathustra" I've gotten this^ impression from the cliff notes. I would like to view it through the lens of his other work rather than the other way around.

Romanticism kind of gets a bad name. I feel that a philosophy can be flawed in it's process and pretext yet still offer something valuable. I think you will see a resurgence of interest in a kind of mystical instinctual man as artificial intelligence begins to outpace human understanding.

 

[Siro]

I haven't read "Thus spoke Zarathustra" I've gotten this^ impression from the cliff notes. I would like to view it through the lens of his other work rather than the other way around.

Romanticism kind of gets a bad name. I feel that a philosophy can be flawed in it's process and pretext yet still offer something valuable. I think you will see a resurgence of interest in a kind of mystical instinctual man as artificial intelligence begins to outpace human understanding.

Ah. The A.I. myth. There is no such thing as sentient artificial intelligence. Researchers are trying to recreate human intelligence in electronic form. That's human intelligence, but in a different format. Big part of the reason why relatively little progress has been made (compared to computing in general) is that the precise mechanisms behind human intelligence are still poorly understood. This will, of course, change. Once every neuron, synapse, pathway has been broken down to the atomic level and then rebuilt, "A.I." would follow a decade or two later. But so what? We managed to recreate our intelligence. The A.I. will be no different than we are, for the simple fact that we do not know what "intelligence" means outside of the human context. If we make the A.I. simply programmable, then that's not intelligence at all, regardless of how convincing it sounds. It is either a human or a computer.

 

[scootsy]

Anybody read modern/contemporary religious philosophy? Aquinas, James, Plantinga?

Only include Aquinas because I have been reading him lately, along with Clifford, Hick, Davis, McCann, Paulsen, Newburg.

 

[♪alt13]

But so what? We managed to recreate our intelligence. The A.I. will be no different than we are, for the simple fact that we do not know what "intelligence" means outside of the human context.

It will be very different than we are. It has taken many thousand years for human intelligence to evolve. When artificial intelligence is created it will have the ability to upgrade itself and fix the "faults" we have discovered in our own intelligence.

Ah. The A.I. myth.

This is condescending.

There is no such thing as sentient artificial intelligence.

This is arrogant.

If we make the A.I. simply programmable, then that's not intelligence at all, regardless of how convincing it sounds.

This is moot.

 

[ema]

Biological creatures(or lets say living organisms) are also just machines of the nature. So I believe we can create completely self thinking, emotional machines one day.

 

[Siro]

It will be very different than we are. It has taken many thousand years for human intelligence to evolve. When artificial intelligence is created it will have the ability to upgrade itself and fix the "faults" we have discovered in our own intelligence.


This is condescending.

This is arrogant.

This is moot.

I can't disagree with condescending (sorry), but there is no arrogance in expressing an opinion that is different than yours. And the point about the need for intelligence to be independent is far from moot. To call it as such without elaboration IS arrogant.

You're repeating the transcendentalist story about how A.I. will be without addressing anything I said. I am familiar with the idea. It is the very first thing you encounter when you discover the Singularity religion. But why would the A.I. want to make themselves obsolete anymore than we do? Would you "fix" faults in your intelligence to a degree where you become distinct from humanity? Why would the A.I.? They are modeled after human intelligence. But you think they'll somehow be different from humans in the precise way that enables this plot to proceed? More importantly, if we have the ability to create human level intelligence, why would the creation possess the ability to upgrade, but not the creator? What is the difference between this transcendental A.I. and stories about gods and magic?

 

[Siro]

Biological creatures(or lets say living organisms) are also just machines of the nature. So I believe we can create completely self thinking, emotional machines one day.

It is very likely, yes.

 

[♪alt13]

And the point about the need for intelligence to be independent is far from moot. To call it as such without elaboration IS arrogant.

It is moot because it is true that it would need to be independent to be sentient. A creation that was dependent on human programming would not qualify as A.I. , and therefore is clearly not what we are talking about.

There is no such thing as sentient artificial intelligence.

It is very presumptuous in the least.

You're repeating the transcendentalist story about how A.I. will be without addressing anything I said. I am familiar with the idea. It is the very first thing you encounter when you discover the Singularity religion. But why would the A.I. want to make themselves obsolete anymore than we do?

You would have to define obsolete.

Would you "fix" faults in your intelligence to a degree where you become distinct from humanity?

Yes. Especially if I didn't have the problem of apoptosis(programed cell death)to shorten my life span.

More importantly, if we have the ability to create human level intelligence, why would the creation possess the ability to upgrade, but not the creator?

Never said humans won't be able to upgrade, though I imagine it may be more difficult. Many people will simply choose not to, these are the people who I think will have quite an interest in romantic human philosophies.

What is the difference between this transcendental A.I. and stories about gods and magic?

If we can give birth to A.I., and I think we can, it is foolish to think that it would have any fewer eccentricities or aspirations than we do. The Singularity folks kind of prove my point.


Do you really think that humans won't someday create A.I.? I won't try and presume when it will happen but I think it is a eventual certainty that it will as long as scientific advances continue to be made.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Nietzsche is the most interesting philosopher out of the 12 or so that college students learn about. And that is mainly for his thoughtful rejection of the majority of Western metaphysics. But deep down, Nietzsche is still as influenced by renaissance romanticism as the others. In fact, many of his axioms are more fitting in poems than in serious philosophical discussion.

Men are only driven by their instinct to dominate. That is not a truth, of course, because there is no such thing. There is only perspective. Except for Christianity. It is the truth that Christianity is horrible. It is the religion of the weak. I should keep talking about this throughout all my work. It is immoral to support Christianity, and we should get rid of it. Not that it matters you know, because history is cyclical. And on the subject of the superman... **** it, I'd rather read the Quran.

Holy ****ing dog****, your reading of Nietzsche is ****ing dog****.

It's obvious he's influenced by what came before... who isn't? But to call him a romantic is to miss the boat so wildly I don't even know where to begin (not to mention the fact that your statement presupposes something about romanticism).

No surprises you whifff on the Overman.

No surprises that you have a blunt take on his notion of history. And Christianity.

Phew, dawg. That's awful.